The “system worked” or did it?

The walk out to the end of the driveway this morning was a bit chilly; thermometer read -10 degrees Fahrenheit. The Christmas break found the area covered in a blanket of snow. On one of our outside excursions to the park, the depth of the snow was just below the knee cap. While the Christmas break brought many gatherings of cheer, family and friends a disturbing story was taking shape. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a plane destined to Detroit with a surprise in his underwear. The 23-year old Nigerian man's attempt to blow up Northwest airlines plane, with 278 passengers, was thwarted when his device malfunctioned. The first reaction by the Obama Administration was for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was to state on CNN's "State of the Union' last Saturday that, "no suggestion that [the suspect] was improperly screened" and that the "system worked". Really, the system worked?

Mr. Abdulmutallab successfully brought on board Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) hidden inside a condom that was stored in his underwear. Also, Mr. Abdulmutallab brought on board a syringe filled with a liquid that is believe to be glycol-based liquid explosive. Yet Secretary Napolitano believed, until yesterday, that the system worked. According to James Crippin, an explosive expert from Colorado, and other law enforcement officials said "modern airport screening machines could have detected the chemical" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/27/national/main6028366.shtml?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell). The types of detection devices airports are able to use are "puffer" machines, bomb-sniffing dogs, and hands-on searches but none of these, at least not yet reported, were used as Mr. Abdulmutallab made his way through security to board the airliner. Another interesting point is that the father warned the United States embassy in Nigeria about his son in November of this year.

For those that have flown since 9/11 have seen many changes in airport security which include removing shoes, placing laptops in the bin, having a photo I.D., and not allowing non-passengers to see loved ones off or greet them at the gate. While many of these changes make sense, the question raised is at what cost to our freedoms? In other countries, like Israel, profiling is done to detect potential terror activities. Profiling has become a dirty word in the United States in recent years because of abuse. The Israeli security personnel do not question everyone that travels through their El Al terminals but they do signal out a certain profile which includes "Arabs and certain foreigners" for "intense grilling" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/09/12/israelisecurity.htm). Can profiling help? Does profiling go against the core of freedom? What degree of freedom must be relented to ensure safety in the air?

These are all questions with no clear answer when it comes to balancing freedoms vs. safety and often evoke emotional response rather than rational ones. The TSA announced on their website, "As a result of this incident, TSA has worked with airline and law enforcement authorities, as well as federal, state, local, and international partners to put additional security measures in place to ensure aviation security remains strong" (http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/dec25_guidance.shtm). Secretary Napolitano said in a statement, http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/northwest_statement.shtm, "I am grateful to the passengers and crew aboard Northwest Flight 253 who reacted quickly and heroically to an incident that could have had tragic results. The Department of Homeland Security immediately put additional screening measures into place – for all domestic and international flights – to ensure the continued safety of the traveling public." If the system worked then why the additional need?

The TSA has updated their list of what one can and cannot bring on board: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm. The question still remains at what level are Americans will to give up their freedom for safety. On some flights it was reported that people were not allowed to have anything in their laps during the final hour of the flight and that pilots are no longer allowed to alert passengers of major landmarks. While I do not think we need armed guards as one will see when traveling internationally but something needs to be done to ensure safety. Otherwise one can expect to be required to be at the airport 4-5 hours prior to boarding.

Profiling: Government Infringement or Useful Tool?

Yesterday's entry on Veteran's Day and the previous entry about the tragedy at Fort Hood morphed into a discussion on profiling. Profiling is "identifying the perpetrator of a crime based on an analysis of crime and the way it was committed" (http://people.howstuffworks.com/profiling.htm). Other examples of profiling include predictive and racial. Predictive profiling attempts to construct a framework that identifies people who are likely to commit a crime while racial profiling, the more controversial profiling, bases a framework on consideration of the perpetrator's skin color alone.

In the wake of the rampage at Fort Hood many feel that political correctness is hampering the ability of law enforcement and the intelligence community's ability to establish profiles. While racial profiling gets the most press there is a need for profiling. Robert Clarke proposed a definition of profiling as "a technique whereby a set of characteristics of a particular class of persons is inferred from past experience, and data-holdings are then searched for individuals with a close fit to that set of characteristics" (http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/PaperProfiling.html). The definition proposed by Clarke makes sense as it is applicable not only to law enforcement but to marketers as well.

I recall the adage of learning from history to ensure mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future. The question is how do we as a society, a free society, establish and apply profiles without trampling on the rights of people afforded them by the United States Constitution. A byproduct of our free society is that we must accept the unsavory elements of society's right to assemble and voice their unpopular views. A friend of mine on Facebook commented that, in response to my entry on Fort Hood, by saying that my suggestion of profiling is "McCarthyism at its finest. Anyone that thinks/speaks/acts differently is targeted. And acting in this way would infringe upon several amendments to the constitution, not the least of which is the 1^st amendment. It's not illegal to have radical ideas. It's illegal to incite others to violent acts through your words. And given that Hasan was a citizen, he is entitled to all the protections the constitution offers. This is why his communications with the radical Imam were disregarded. And it's the same rights that are afforded [you] and I."

I agree with my friend that the United States Constitution protects radical speech. At the same time I argue the fact that predictive profiling is needed to protect society. Benjamin Franklin quipped; "Those who forego essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither" was aptly applied to the conversation by the same Facebook friend that raised the issue above. That being said, how do we develop predictive profiles without infringing on the rights of American citizens to assemble, speak, and associate with others without fear of retribution from the government? Or is profiling an affront to the principles our Founding Fathers instilled in the United States Constitution?